Labour toughens immigration plans further – in response to criticisms of being too tough
Share this post:
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has altered plans for a new immigration policy in response to claims that it is ‘too tough’ – by making it tougher still.
On November 14, the BBC told us:
“People granted asylum in the UK will only be allowed to stay in the country temporarily, in a major change of policy to be announced by the home secretary on Monday.
“Shabana Mahmood is expected to declare that the era of permanent protection for refugees is over, as she seeks to reduce asylum claims and small boat crossings.
“Under the plans, those granted asylum will be returned to their home country when it is deemed safe and their status will be regularly reviewed.
“Currently, refugee status in the UK lasts for five years, after which they can apply for indefinite leave to remain and have a route to citizenship.
“There are currently some temporary schemes for those fleeing the conflict in Ukraine. This was initially for three years but extensions have been granted.
“In a social media video trailing her announcement, external, Mahmood said: “We will always be a country that gives sanctuary to people who are fleeing danger but we must restore order and control.””
It may not seem like much on the face of it, but there was a lot going on beneath the surface…
To read the rest, head over to The Whip Line.
A subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
Rift in Labour as Lewis calls for Burnham to replace Starmer
Share this post:
Clive Lewis has become the first Labour MP to break ranks and call for Keir Starmer to be replaced as party leader and prime minister – by Andy Burnham.
The right-wing newspapers have been having a lot of fun with this while other outlets (notably the BBC) have been silent, but it seems to be accurate. Here’s the Daily Express:
“The MP for Norwich South has previously called for Starmer to stand down, but has now gone further, endorsing Burnham.
“Speaking to Channel 4, Lewis said: “We need to do what the Prime Minister once said, which is put country before party. And frankly, party before personal ambition. I just don’t see how this can stagger on without any kind of resolution on the horizon.
““And I think the Labour Party, the Labour grandees, the men in grey suits now really, seriously think, how can we get Andy Burnham back in to this parliamentary Labour Party and let him step up and become the next Prime Minister? That’s my personal view. I know it won’t be shared by everyone, but I don’t see many other options.”
“As reported by the Daily Mail, Mr Burnham has not yet commented on the remarks which come less than two weeks before Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirms her Autumn Budget.”
I’m a supporter of Clive Lewis because he has supported me with donation money in the past; he strikes me as one of the few traditional Labour politicians left in the Labour Party.
His intervention is making waves because he has not simply said Starmer should resign (he has said that before, on several occasions).
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
This time he has endorsed a specific successor – Andy Burnham, who is not even in the parliamentary Labour Party; said publicly that the situation cannot continue and Labour grandees should find a way to bring Burnham back into Westminster to become prime minister; and openly contradicted the leadership line that “Labour is united”.
That is a major escalation. In Westminster terms, it is more like a shot across the bow of the entire leadership structure than a casual comment.
It is hugely risky for him because the current Labour hierarchy behaves more like a Cult of Keir than a conventional political leadership team.
It is intensely centralised, intolerant of dissent, and quick to punish MPs who undermine the party line. The examples are clear:
- MPs have been suspended for far less direct criticism.
- Dissent is handled through anonymous briefings designed to isolate the dissenter.
- Loyalty to Starmer has been prioritised above political competence.
Under that system, Clive Lewis has put a target on his own back.
Possible consequences for him include:
- Isolation within the parliamentary party,
- Loss of any remaining committee influence,
- Quiet but deliberate moves to deselect him (the party machine has done this to many MPs already), and
- Being blamed for “adding to instability” if Labour’s current polling crisis worsens.
Lewis will know this — which suggests he calculated that the cost of staying quiet now is worse than the cost of speaking out.
So the question is: why did he decide now was the moment?
I can think of three key factors:
1. Labour’s collapse in the polls
If Labour really is hovering around fourth place in some polls, as the Express’s list of linked stories repeatedly insists, then MPs who want to survive may feel they have nothing to lose.
2. The Downing Street briefing war
The leadership is already wounded.
Anonymous briefings against cabinet members, denials from Number 10, accusations of disloyalty from Wes Streeting all make this a structurally weak moment.
3. Burnham’s name keeps surfacing anyway
For weeks, the press — particularly the tabloids — have been treating Burnham as a shadow challenger whether he wants that or not.
Lewis may simply have said out loud what others are thinking privately.
Was it a wise move?
From a career perspective: risky. Extremely risky.
But Lewis has never been one of the careerists. He has always been willing to take principled but costly positions: anti-war, anti-austerity, pro-democracy inside Labour.
If Starmer falls, Lewis will look like a truth-teller who moved early.
If Starmer doesn’t fall, Lewis may find:
- His position in the party is weakened
- He is vulnerable to internal discipline
- Constituency pressure increases as Labour HQ intervenes
but he may also calculate that Starmer cannot survive a polling rout, a budget crisis, and an internal briefing war all at once — and that this is simply getting ahead of the inevitable.
So, what happens next?
The most likely short-term consequences are as follows:
Firstly, the leadership will not respond openly to Lewis. Doing so would acknowledge the challenge.
Anonymous briefings against him will start almost immediately. Expect “senior Labour sources” to question his judgement, loyalty, or electoral relevance.
Other MPs will watch the reaction very closely. If the leadership looks weak or defensive, more may break ranks.
Burnham will stay silent. This is because silence is his only safe option for now. If he comments, it becomes a leadership bid. Silence keeps him in play without commitment.
The press will now frame this as an active leadership crisis. It already was — but now they have an on-the-record quote from a sitting MP endorsing a successor. That is dynamite in Westminster terms.
What can we conclude?
It is increasingly clear that Starmer’s leadership is being held together by fear and discipline rather than enthusiasm or loyalty.
When MPs start openly backing alternative prime ministers, it tells you Starmer’s grip is weakening.
Whether Lewis acted wisely depends on whether the dam bursts or holds.
Right now, it is starting to crack.
Share this post:
Will money really stop the collapse of special needs education? Why not change our thinking?
Share this post:
The special educational needs and disabilities system in England is in crisis – and we’re told it’s all about money, as usual.
Here’s the BBC, but I think it’s wrong on this:
“The special educational needs and disabilities system for children in England faces “total collapse” and the government must not “keep ducking” reforms, council leaders have warned.
“The County Councils Network, which represents some of England’s largest local authorities, said councils had deficits which will reach £4.4bn a year by the end of this parliament in 2029, as they struggled to cope with increased demand.
““Over-reliance on higher costs placements and special provision” [is] also a factor, including “expensive private school places”.
“The government has put off planned reforms to the SEND system until next year, and a white paper setting out those reforms was delayed recently.
“But ministers face pressure from Labour MPs who warn there would be political danger in watering down support for children.”
So it’s all about money – allegedly. But is it?
The issues are systemic, structural, and demand-driven. Let’s break it down.
Councils are warning of deficits approaching £4.4 billion a year, with projections of £8 billion for placements by the end of the decade. That is massive pressure on budgets.
But simply increasing budgets won’t fix deeper systemic issues like inefficiency, bureaucracy, or the balance between mainstream and specialist provision.
To read the rest – and this one really has a lot to offer, head over to The Whip Line.
A subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
Lords suggest more than 900 changes to Assisted Dying Bill – and call for more time
Share this post:
Supporters of the flawed so-called Assisted Dying Bill have been upset to find that members of the House of Lords have put down for debate more than 900 amendments to it.
Here’s the BBC:
“Experts believe the number of amendments is unprecedented, but opponents say significant alterations are needed to ensure any scheme can operate safely.
“The volume of amendments has sparked a letter from 65 supportive peers to their colleagues in the Lords, raising concern about possible delaying tactics.
“Those opposing the bill have been urged not to “frustrate” the passage of the legislation, which has already gained the approval of MPs.
“The legislation, which would cover England and Wales, proposes allowing terminally ill adults with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death.
“This would be subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist.”
The argument that peers should not frustrate the wishes of MPs in the House of Commons is weak – because the Lords are expected to carry out expert analysis of legislation that comes to them.
To read the rest, head over to The Whip Line.
A subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
‘Toxic, exclusionary and deeply disheartening’ – why can’t Your Party live up to its name?
Share this post:
Independent MP Adnan Hussain has left the steering group of Your Party, criticising a “toxic” culture, particularly against “Muslim men”.
This could be a response to co-founder Zarah Sultana’s prior claim that the nascent party was male-dominated.
Here’s the BBC:
“The Blackburn MP also alleged a “pattern of clique-like behaviour and gatekeeping” and a party “dominated by persistent infighting”.
“In his letter, Hussain said he had believed he was signing up to “building a political home with mass appeal” and “a force capable of challenging the rise of far-right rhetoric”.
““Regrettably, the reality I encountered has been far from this vision.
““The culture surrounding the party has become dominated by persistent infighting, factional competition and a struggle for power, position and influence rather than a shared commitment to the common good.
““Instead of openness, cooperation and outward focus, the environment has too often felt toxic, exclusionary and deeply disheartening.”
“The Blackburn MP added: “I have also been deeply troubled by the way certain figures within the steering process, particularly Muslim men, have been spoken about and treated.
““At times the rhetoric used has been disturbingly similar to the very political forces the left claims to oppose. I witnessed insinuations about capability, dismissive attitudes and language that carried, at the very least, veiled prejudice.””
Sultana had previously said she had been excluded from the party’s working group and subjected to what she called a “sexist boys’ club”.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
She is currently in dispute with the other founders over £800,000 that was collected by a company controlled by Sultana in order to set up the organisation.
The money must now be transferred to what we must assume is the party’s official financial home. £200,000 has already been passed over, with further payments of the same amount due on November 19 and 26 – the last being just three days before the party’s founding conference is due to take place.
A spokesperson for Sultana has said that all funds will be transferred once the costs and liabilities of the company that was created to collect them are settled in full.
But it all leaves a very bad impression.
This is a textbook example of everything that goes wrong when idealism collides with poor organisation, weak governance, and internal power struggles.
On paper, “Your Party” was meant to be a fresh, democratic alternative to Labour—a party that could unite the left, give people a sense of ownership, and challenge the status quo.
In reality, it has imploded under the weight of personal rivalries, factionalism, and legal/financial confusion.
The repeated themes here are striking:
- Infighting and factionalism – Hussain’s resignation highlights a toxic culture where personal influence and cliques outweigh shared goals.
- Financial chaos – the £800,000 dispute shows the party’s organisational structures are far from ready to handle real-world responsibilities.
- Loss of credibility – public squabbles over emails, donations, and leadership have undermined the very idea of transparency and democracy the party was supposed to embody.
- Ideological contradictions – accusations of prejudice and exclusion within a party meant to champion inclusivity show that principles are being drowned by politics-as-usual.
The sad truth is that the UK’s left-wing movement keeps repeating this cycle: a bold, hopeful start, then collapse into personal disputes before anything constructive can happen.
Supporters signed up expecting unity and action; instead, they’re witnessing a repeat of old patterns that left-wing projects have historically struggled to overcome.
Unless there’s a serious shake-up in governance and a commitment to collective responsibility, it is hard to see how Your Party can survive its founding conference without further splits.
At this point, it’s not about ideology—it’s about basic organisation and mutual respect.
Share this post:
- ☕ Support Vox Political on Ko-fi or donate via PayPal
- 📘 Buy our books — political analysis and satire you won’t find elsewhere
- 📨 Join the mailing list for real headlines, direct to your inbox
- 🔗 Follow us on Facebook and Twitter/X
